Triboro Subway Line

[CenSin]

Obviously, they would have to get a waiver for something like this if it can't be built to B divisions standards and would have to use IRT-sized cars so such trains can be long enough (in this, 12-car IRT trains).  In a perfect world, they would be able to use B-division sized cars on it so it can be 10 card and a nice, tidy 600' but apparently it may not be possible.

Why do you think they couldn't use B division cars?

If the tracks can run mainline stock, it can run BMT stock.

Listening and reading comprehension are necessary life skills.

[RailRunRob]

Where the Triboro Rx right-of-way meets the Brooklyn–Queens Expressway, the subway tracks would ramp up over the Brooklyn–Queens Expressway and run along the median. There shouldn't be any complaints since the cars would be louder than any train running over the expressway in any case. In that area, the Triboro Rx would have a transfer to the at 69 Street and the at 65 Street. The Triboro Rx would continue along the Brooklyn–Queens Expressway until Astoria Boulevard, where it switches over to the Grand Central Parkway towards Randall's Island. It would have convenient transfer to the at Astoria Boulevard before heading over Randall's Island and to the Bronx where the right-of-way is definitely wide enough to host a subway above (if not alongside) the railroad.

So we skip the Hell Gate bridge? How do we get to Randall's island?   

Listening and reading comprehension are necessary life skills.

I might have missed something. Enlighten me just read what you wrote. just a question.

[CenSin]

So we skip the Hell Gate bridge? How do we get to Randall's island?

The Grand Central Parkway goes over the East River to Randall's Island too.

 

 

I might have missed something. Enlighten me just read what you wrote. just a question.

That was addressed to the first quoted post.

[RailRunRob]

The Grand Central Parkway goes over the East River to Randall's Island too.

 

That was addressed to the first quoted post.

The GCP crosses via the RFK bridge thats a quite a undertaking to strengthen the bridge for heavy Rolling stock. Plus elevated trackage for the 2 Mile run to the Bronx for all that we can take our chances with Hell Gate haha!. Seems easier to deal with that. Ill check your earlier post as well.

Don't forget the half-billion per station... For a line the length of Triboro it would be at least 25 stations to have any use.

500M for Station? The new Arthur Kills Station on Staten Island is 15-20 Million I'm i missing something?

[CenSin]

The GCP crosses via the RFK bridge thats a quite a undertaking to strengthen the bridge for heavy Rolling stock. Plus elevated trackage for the 2 Mile run to the Bronx for all that we can take our chances with Hell Gate haha!. Seems easier to deal with that.

The standard practice for running rail over obstacles like gorges and rivers is to run it along a structure already built with rail in mind (like the George Washington Bridge). Absent of such provisions, an existing structure may be modified to support rail, or an entirely new structure may be purpose-built for rail.

 

The elevated run would still be a lot cheaper than tunnelling or digging. Plus, there would be less disturbance to Amtrak. Amtrak is going to need the 2 tracks, leaving 2 more along the Hell Gate Bridge. One trackway is currently not being used, but the other is for freight.

 

Of course, there is also the matter of building stations. How would that be achievable using the existing right-of-way at Astoria–Ditmars Boulevard? The right-of-way has no provisions for the installation of platforms. Building over a highway becomes attractive in this area to avoid attracting the ire of NIMBYs and disturbing Amtrak. And to the best of my knowledge, it's one of the few areas where a brand new structure should be built to avoid the limitations of pre-existing structures.

 

That said, it's my personal opinion that the Triboro Rx would serve it's purpose simply by connecting Queens and Brooklyn similar to how the Second Avenue Subway's first two phases will do so much to alleviate crowding on the Lexington Avenue line. If I were to divide its construction into four phases: phase Ⅰ would be the construction of the Triboro Rx from Bay Ridge to East New York; phase Ⅱ would be the construction of the Triboro Rx from East New York to Jackson Heights; phase Ⅲ would be the construction of the Triboro Rx from Jackson Heights to Astoria; and phase Ⅳ would be an extension into the Bronx (but to where in the Bronx, I don't know). Phases Ⅲ and Ⅳ are comparable to Second Avenue Subway's phases Ⅲ and Ⅳ in that they are expected to pose additional challenges not found in phases Ⅰ or Ⅱ.

 

 

500M for Station? The new Arthur Kills Station on Staten Island is 15-20 Million I'm i missing something?

$500,000,000 is a gross overestimate for anything not underground. Someone needs to find out how much the Brighton rehabilitation project cost. Since they stripped away much of the old stations to build news ones, I reckon the price tag would be somewhat similar as well.

[bobtehpanda]

Where the Triboro Rx right-of-way meets the Brooklyn–Queens Expressway, the subway tracks would ramp up over the Brooklyn–Queens Expressway and run along the median. There shouldn't be any complaints since the cars would be louder than any train running over the expressway in any case. In that area, the Triboro Rx would have a transfer to the at 69 Street and the at 65 Street. The Triboro Rx would continue along the Brooklyn–Queens Expressway until Astoria Boulevard, where it switches over to the Grand Central Parkway towards Randall's Island. It would have convenient transfer to the at Astoria Boulevard before heading over Randall's Island and to the Bronx where the right-of-way is definitely wide enough to host a subway above (if not alongside) the railroad.

 

Why not just use the Hell Gate? It has room for four tracks.

 

There's no operational benefit to having the RX run subway equipment. You're not likely to interline service onto the RX (and those track connections don't really exist anyways), and the Bay Ridge Freight Terminal is big enough to host a yard for RX trains.

[Kamen Rider]

Let's just get "subway line" out of our heads entirely. That's the only way the RX will ever get built.

[Wallyhorse]

Why do you think they couldn't use B division cars?

It was mentioned why upthread I believe.

 

B division cars are always preferable for obvious reasons.  

[RailRunRob]

The standard practice for running rail over obstacles like gorges and rivers is to run it along a structure already built with rail in mind (like the George Washington Bridge). Absent of such provisions, an existing structure may be modified to support rail, or an entirely new structure may be purpose-built for rail.

 

The elevated run would still be a lot cheaper than tunnelling or digging. Plus, there would be less disturbance to Amtrak. Amtrak is going to need the 2 tracks, leaving 2 more along the Hell Gate Bridge. One trackway is currently not being used, but the other is for freight.

 

Of course, there is also the matter of building stations. How would that be achievable using the existing right-of-way at Astoria–Ditmars Boulevard? The right-of-way has no provisions for the installation of platforms. Building over a highway becomes attractive in this area to avoid attracting the ire of NIMBYs and disturbing Amtrak. And to the best of my knowledge, it's one of the few areas where a brand new structure should be built to avoid the limitations of pre-existing structures.

 

That said, it's my personal opinion that the Triboro Rx would serve it's purpose simply by connecting Queens and Brooklyn similar to how the Second Avenue Subway's first two phases will do so much to alleviate crowding on the Lexington Avenue line. If I were to divide its construction into four phases: phase Ⅰ would be the construction of the Triboro Rx from Bay Ridge to East New York; phase Ⅱ would be the construction of the Triboro Rx from East New York to Jackson Heights; phase Ⅲ would be the construction of the Triboro Rx from Jackson Heights to Astoria; and phase Ⅳ would be an extension into the Bronx (but to where in the Bronx, I don't know). Phases Ⅲ and Ⅳ are comparable to Second Avenue Subway's phases Ⅲ and Ⅳ in that they are expected to pose additional challenges not found in phases Ⅰ or Ⅱ.

 

$500,000,000 is a gross overestimate for anything not underground. Someone needs to find out how much the Brighton rehabilitation project cost. Since they stripped away much of the old stations to build news ones, I reckon the price tag would be somewhat similar as well.

I can respect this. true in a perfect world all of this could be done. Sometimes engineering is planing for whats possible and not whats manageable.  

[Art Vandelay]

Just because things are said doesn't mean they have any basis in reality. Not only could the line run B division cars, It could run 75 footers without modification. In fact, It could run 85 footers without modification!!!

[RailRunRob]

Why not just use the Hell Gate? It has room for four tracks.

 

There's no operational benefit to having the RX run subway equipment. You're not likely to interline service onto the RX (and those track connections don't really exist anyways), and the Bay Ridge Freight Terminal is big enough to host a yard for RX trains.

I was thinking the samething. Maybe even DMU's it just intermixing the frequency of a rapid transit line with or alongside MetroNorth, Amtrak and Freight that's a major choke point. If that could be worked out it's all downhill from there. Id still say running it to the Airport could be a option as well. What say you?

[bobtehpanda]

I was thinking the samething. Maybe even DMU's it just intermixing the frequency of a rapid transit line with or alongside MetroNorth, Amtrak and Freight that's a major choke point. If that could be worked out it's all downhill from there. Id still say running it to the Airport could be a option as well. What say you?

 

To which airport? Neither of them are particularly convenient to the RX, and that would be a really circuitious trip.

 

Electrification makes more sense, mostly because FRA compliant DMUs aren't really a thing.

[RailRunRob]

To which airport? Neither of them are particularly convenient to the RX, and that would be a really circuitious trip.

 

Electrification makes more sense, mostly because FRA compliant DMUs aren't really a thing.

LGA it's a mile from I278 and where it meets St Micheal Cemetery. I know DMU aren't super common here in the US they seem to happening in a few places. eBart and NJT Riverline being two. I know the LIRR were looking into DMU's as well. With the Electrification what 24 Miles of 3rd rail with substations every two miles. DMU seems a lot simpler to get the ball moving and a good plan B tho electrification would be perfered

[bobtehpanda]

LGA it's a mile from I278 and where it meets St Micheal Cemetery. I know DMU aren't super common here in the US they seem to happening in a few places. eBart and NJT Riverline being two. I know the LIRR were looking into DMU's as well. With the Electrification what 24 Miles of 3rd rail with substations every two miles. DMU seems a lot simpler to get the ball moving and a good plan B tho electrification would be perfered

 

Electrification is not that expensive, and for a line that's going to be as busy as the RX we might as well do it anyway. NJT Riverline got a time separation to run its DMUs, which are not FRA compliant, and eBART also got a waiver for not sharing tracks with any other mainline rail system (which isn't true for the RX). It's very unlikely that the FRA would offer a waiver to a line running in the RX ROW.

[CenSin]

Electrification is not that expensive, and for a line that's going to be as busy as the RX we might as well do it anyway. NJT Riverline got a time separation to run its DMUs, which are not FRA compliant, and eBART also got a waiver for not sharing tracks with any other mainline rail system (which isn't true for the RX). It's very unlikely that the FRA would offer a waiver to a line running in the RX ROW.

Throw in a fence and it should probably be fine. It works for Washington D.C. along the Red Line.

[RailRunRob]

Electrification is not that expensive, and for a line that's going to be as busy as the RX we might as well do it anyway. NJT Riverline got a time separation to run its DMUs, which are not FRA compliant, and eBART also got a waiver for not sharing tracks with any other mainline rail system (which isn't true for the RX). It's very unlikely that the FRA would offer a waiver to a line running in the RX ROW.

Gotcha makes perfect sense.

[N6 Limited]

Why does the FRA have that sharing ROW rule anyway?

[itmaybeokay]

Why not just use the Hell Gate? It has room for four tracks.

 

There's no operational benefit to having the RX run subway equipment. You're not likely to interline service onto the RX (and those track connections don't really exist anyways), and the Bay Ridge Freight Terminal is big enough to host a yard for RX trains.

 

Two of the tracks are Amtrak NEC. 

 

I really really doubt that they would be too keen on sharing their trackage with yet another commuter line. They already have to contend with the LIRR to/from penn and then NJT further south. 

 

Furthermore, it's oft suggested that Metro North be brought to Penn via the hell gate bridge. Do that and throw some station stops along the route and how well is that gonna work? 

 

The option for the hell gate bridge is sharing the Freight tracks with commuter rail, but this is no easy feat. You'll have long, long gaps in commuter service to allow freight trains through. Freight service doesn't stop on a dime. Hell - it wouldn't stop on a mile-long replica of a dime. You can't run it right behind transit service and expect it to stop and wait everytime the RX is picking up commuters. 

 

There exists the possibility for innovative solutions here - length-limited electric freight trains, eliminating stops entirely over the hellgate portion, i don't know what else. But it's not an easy fish to fry. 

[Tokkemon]

It would be more useful to just build a new bridge or Tunnel from Queens to The Bronx, but there has to be some serious political and/or citizen demand for such an act. 

[CenSin]

It was mentioned why upthread I believe.

 

B division cars are always preferable for obvious reasons.  

It was indeed mentioned. And IRT-sized cars are irrelevant to the discussion. If your bag holds a gallon jug, it can hold a pint-sized carton. Railroads handle cars much larger than those found on the subway. If those are supported, B-division cars are implicitly supported. It should not even have been brought up.

[bobtehpanda]

Two of the tracks are Amtrak NEC. 

 

I really really doubt that they would be too keen on sharing their trackage with yet another commuter line. They already have to contend with the LIRR to/from penn and then NJT further south. 

 

Furthermore, it's oft suggested that Metro North be brought to Penn via the hell gate bridge. Do that and throw some station stops along the route and how well is that gonna work? 

 

The option for the hell gate bridge is sharing the Freight tracks with commuter rail, but this is no easy feat. You'll have long, long gaps in commuter service to allow freight trains through. Freight service doesn't stop on a dime. Hell - it wouldn't stop on a mile-long replica of a dime. You can't run it right behind transit service and expect it to stop and wait everytime the RX is picking up commuters. 

 

There exists the possibility for innovative solutions here - length-limited electric freight trains, eliminating stops entirely over the hellgate portion, i don't know what else. But it's not an easy fish to fry. 

 

The Hell Gate viaduct has room for four tracks. It's very clear that this is the case just looking over the viaduct on Google Maps. In fact, except for a few very short sections around East New York, most of the ROW has four tracks, so you could just build an additional pair of tracks if you wanted to completely segregate from freight (which is a good idea anyways, since freight trains are not particularly fast)

[Kamen Rider]

Why does the FRA have that sharing ROW rule anyway?

The FTA and the FRA have different crash safety standards. 

 

In an accident between a freight train and a rapid transit train, the freight train would always win. 

 

bobtehpanda, on 12 Feb 2015 - 8:41 PM, said:

The Hell Gate viaduct has room for four tracks. It's very clear that this is the case just looking over the viaduct on Google Maps. In fact, except for a few very short sections around East New York, most of the ROW has four tracks, so you could just build an additional pair of tracks if you wanted to completely segregate from freight (which is a good idea anyways, since freight trains are not particularly fast)

 

 

 

The thing is the ROW is not four tracks wide in enough places to justify that, You would need to build extra bridges in several spots, and the full width of the ROW is used near the old Freemont tower as part of the yard. There is also the fact the seperated tracks may need to jump from one side of the ROW to the other to avoid getting in the way. 

[CenSin]

The thing is the ROW is not four tracks wide in enough places to justify that, You would need to build extra bridges in several spots, and the full width of the ROW is used near the old Freemont tower as part of the yard. There is also the fact the seperated tracks may need to jump from one side of the ROW to the other to avoid getting in the way.

Compared to building the entire thing from scratch without this convenient right-of-way, a few bridges to add and flyovers are easy jobs.

[Roadcruiser1]

The problem is the entire R.O.W. doesn't exactly belong to the M.T.A.. Now if you can find a solution to that then you can run this service, but as of now you can't.

[bobtehpanda]

The problem is the entire R.O.W. doesn't exactly belong to the M.T.A.. Now if you can find a solution to that then you can run this service, but as of now you can't.

 

There are numerous areas where transit agencies run service but do not themselves own the right-of-way.